I think gamers should contact their local goverment representative about establishing legislation so that companys who create mmo's have to meet a certain service level for their customers. This is not to just bash Cryptic, but if you pay for a game, you should at least be able to play it without worrying about servers going down every five minutes, server not responding messages, etc. The only only reason they can get away with this is because they don't have any rules or punishment if they disobey those rules. The trend will continue to get worse if people don't join together and put a stop to it. Microtransactions will get worse, etc.

I'm willing to bet good money that lawyers are already waiting for the first Consumer V MMO Company case to appear. It will, for better or worse, be a good thing when it does.

Good for whom? Certainly not those of us who enjoy MMO's, because, in order to "guarantee" this "reasonable life expectancy," they'd have to either water the games down, or have them in development so long as to never see the light of day. It also wouldn't be good for MMO customers, as, since you're involved in a contract with the developer, nobody unable to prove they're over 18 would be able to play. You may say that's a good thing, but, if someone under the age of 18 DID play (after all, it is a game, and ask anyone in the government, games are targeted to children), who would be responsible there? You could SAY the children, but you'd be wrong by legal precedent. Every time children have bypassed security systems for pornography on the internet, the suppliers are brought to task, not the children. So, a child plays an MMO? It's the dev's fault, which means that they'll have to spend money in court instead of on improving our game. They then have to spend more money increasing their security - which will eventually be broken, see internet pronography - instead of on improving our game.

The fact of the matter is, all purchasing this game entitles ANYONE to is an account. Was OP prevented in establishing said account? I'd say no, since he's posting. If he doesn't like the services he's receiving, he doesn't have to continue the account. Unlike with a phone company, if he decides he wants back in later, all he has to do is buy more time.

As for Lifetime subscribers, we purchased a lifetime subscription knowing the risk. All it has to do is make it 16 months for us to break even. That's a risk a vast majority of us are willing to take.

Not sure if this has been mentioned because I didn't read through all 25 pages, but there is an agreement that you click "I Accept" to at some point where they basically say they have the right to take the servers down at any time for any reason, so...

Not sure if this has been mentioned because I didn't read through all 25 pages, but there is an agreement that you click "I Accept" to at some point where they basically say they have the right to take the servers down at any time for any reason, so...

It has been successfully argued in court in America that says that those agreements are not legally binding in any way. While it can be argued that it is proof of being informed prior to making an account, some courts won't look at it that way.

Certainly not those of us who enjoy MMO's, because, in order to "guarantee" this "reasonable life expectancy," they'd have to either water the games down, or have them in development so long as to never see the light of day.

And yet, what IS the reasonable life expectancy of a MMO? You failed to answer, this block of text is as much use as a fish on a bike.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidethfreak

It also wouldn't be good for MMO customers, as, since you're involved in a contract with the developer, nobody unable to prove they're over 18 would be able to play. You may say that's a good thing, but, if someone under the age of 18 DID play (after all, it is a game, and ask anyone in the government, games are targeted to children), who would be responsible there? You could SAY the children, but you'd be wrong by legal precedent. Every time children have bypassed security systems for pornography on the internet, the suppliers are brought to task, not the children. So, a child plays an MMO? It's the dev's fault, which means that they'll have to spend money in court instead of on improving our game. They then have to spend more money increasing their security - which will eventually be broken, see internet pronography - instead of on improving our game.

So then in your opinion the EULA isn't a legally binding contract. That's all you had to say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidethfreak

The fact of the matter is, all purchasing this game entitles ANYONE to is an account. Was OP prevented in establishing said account? I'd say no, since he's posting. If he doesn't like the services he's receiving, he doesn't have to continue the account. Unlike with a phone company, if he decides he wants back in later, all he has to do is buy more time.

Does it? See my previous statement. If THAT is all it entitles you too and the contract (which, you don't believe it is but keep with me) is vastly in favour of Cryptic/Atari (in this instance) then... it's voided be default.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jedidethfreak

As for Lifetime subscribers, we purchased a lifetime subscription knowing the risk. All it has to do is make it 16 months for us to break even. That's a risk a vast majority of us are willing to take.

You have just elected yourself as the spokes person for all people who purchased lifetime's on this product. Duely noted.

It has been successfully argued in court in America that says that those agreements are not legally binding in any way. While it can be argued that it is proof of being informed prior to making an account, some courts won't look at it that way.

And then Congress passed a new law to satisfy those rulings, the President signed it, and it became law. Now it's the same as signing your name in pen on a paper contract. This one's been there a long time now, and not overturned.

And then Congress passed a new law to satisfy those rulings, the President signed it, and it became law. Now it's the same as signing your name in pen on a paper contract. This one's been there a long time now, and not overturned.

In the UK, where this product is also sold and thus its laws also apply, three court cases over EULA's have been fought. One said "Yes, legal" the second said "No, not legal". The third was settled out of court so no judgment can be gleaned for future use. I'm not aware of EU court rulings on the matter.

As I said in my post its things like this which have yet to be settled. In the case of MMO's where the company/servers are based in one country... does that countries laws supercede local laws where the item was purchased? I'm thinking no. But you never know.

i'm wondering where it became a bright idea for people to threaten legal action. i know we live in a world of victims, but what the hell is with all the "I'll sue Cryptic" threads? What does that accomplish?

i'm wondering where it became a bright idea for people to threaten legal action. i know we live in a world of victims, but what the hell is with all the "I'll sue Cryptic" threads? What does that accomplish?

Badges of Litigation are trade-able for in game items at Deep Space 9, after you do the quest where the Grand Nagus sends you to kill about 4000 squadrons of Klingons and Repair the Satellites.